RAMANATHA GURUKKAL ALIAS PARAMESWARA GURUKKAL Vs. VVRARUNACHALAM CHETTIAR, MANAGER FOR THE TIME BEING OF TIRUPALATHURAI SIVA DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises the question whether an archaka of a temple who has been dismissed from his office by the trustee has a right to challenge the correctness of the trustee's action in a Court of law or whether his remedy is limited by Section 43 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, to an appeal to the Temple Committee or to the Religious Endowments Board as the case may be.

(2.) The appellant is admittedly a hereditary archaka of the Thirupalathurai temple in the Trichinopoly District. He is suffering from leucoderma and he was dismissed from his office by the trustee, ostensibly on this ground, but it would appear from the findings of both the lower Courts that the trustee was actuated by ill will towards the appellant. Section 43(1) of the Act states: All office-holders and servants attached to a temple or in receipt of any emolument or perquisite from the temple shall be under the orders and control of the trustee; and the trustee may fine, suspend, remove or dismiss any of them for breach of trust, incapacity, disobedience of lawful orders, neglect of duty, misconduct or other sufficient cause.

(3.) By Sub-section (2), an office-holder or servant of a temple other than an excepted temple may appeal to the Committee whose decision shall, in the case of a non-hereditary office- holder or servant, be final. By Sub-section (3), a hereditary office-holder or servant of a temple other than an excepted temple may prefer an appeal to the Board against the order of the Committee on appeal under Sub-section (2) and the decision of the Board shall be final. The temple of which the appellant was an archaka is a non-excepted temple, but the appellant did not then appeal to the Committee against his dismissal by the trustee, but instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Kulitalai, for an injunction restraining the trustee from interfering with the appellant's exercise of his office. The District Munsif held that the suit could be maintained and granted an injunction restraining the trustee from interfering with the discharge of the duties of his office. An appeal was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly, who held that the appellant had no right of suit, and this decision was accepted by Wadsworth, J., on second appeal.